AIESEC in Malaysia
SONA 15/16
Q4 Report
introduction statistical information • All information in the current document refers to the timeframe between the 1st of October and the 31st of December of 2015, more commonly known as Quarter 4 (or Q4) of 2015. • The information was provided by the 13 LCs through the AIESEC in Malaysia Q4 SONA Survey and also by the 9 SUs through the Q4 SONA for SUs Survey. • Other information sources used in the present document: • LC XPP and Team Minimum trackers • National S&S Tracker • Monthly Finance Trackers
how is the information organized? • The information was collected by functional area but is presented through broader organizational elements. This is because JDs are integrated in different roles from LC to LC (i.e., AIESEC in TU has a BD department whereas other LCs integrate it either in iGTP, MarComm or the LCP herself) and also because it gives you, the reader, a better big picture understanding of the state of AIESEC in Malaysia iregardless of what functional area you are currently allocated to. • The elements are the following: • External Engagement (p.3-11) • Talent Capacity (p.12-17) + Outputs of AIESEC in Malaysia Member Survey (p. 18-23) • Sustainability (p.24-29) • Exchange Management (p.30-41) • Specialized Units (p.42-44)
how to capitalize on sOna to make my lc grow? • You should not just read and think alone about the results; • All results should be discussed in EBs – the mindset should be “how can I improve” instead of justifying the reason why those are your results. If you justify you are not being constructive and you’re just deceiving yourself. This will not lead to growth. • Each element should also be discussed by the teams in the functional areas which concern them. By doing this we are including all the members of AIESEC in Malaysia in the way we work in our LCs and in cultivating awareness towards the overall organizational reality.
external engagement UTM 23 (2%)
UNMC
CU
52 (4%)
53 (4%)
TU
UUM
124 (10%)
USM 96 (8%)
230 (18%)
SU
76 (6%)
# of applications for EP
UTP
340 (27%)
UKM 57 (5%)
UPM 78 (6%)
UM
74 (6%)
UMP 53 (4%)
1398 applications for am Q3 + Q4 = 1944 Applications
offline (67,7%)
online (32,3%)
3
external engagement UNMC 2 (3%)
UTM
7 (10%)
SU
UUM 5 (7%)
USM 6 (8%)
UTP
13 (18%)
12 (17%)
# of applications for EP
UKM 1 (1%)
80 applications for am Q3 + Q4 = 207 Applications
online (32,5%)
UPM
25 (35%)
offline (67,5%) 4
external engagement UTM 3
UTP 22
UMP 89
UNMC 317
431 applications for am Q3 + Q4 = 2462 Applications
# of applications for tmp
online (12,5%) offline (87,5%) 5
external engagement outcampus performance
UNIMAS UUM 16
13
UNIMAS
UMP
UTP
UNIMAS
UPM
80
2
UNMC
7
6
9
TU
USM
MA
3
4
17
UNMC
UUM
UTP UPM
43
6
UNIMAS UUM UTP 2
UNMC
TU
UNMC
242 outcampus gcp ep applications
23 outcampus members recruited
23 matches and 13 realizations
17,3% of total applications
2,7% of total membership
xxx% of total applications
RE
7
59
3
UPM 6
LC
operations in…
LC
operations in…
UMP
UMT, KPTM
TU
INTI(IICS), Taylor’s College S Hartamas
UKM
GMI, Segi Damansara
UNMC
LimKokWing, UTAR SL Campus
UTP
UPSI
UNIMAS
UCTS, Segi, UiTM
6
external engagement expansion LC
su target(s)
engagement
UUM
AIMST, Form 6 HS
-
UTP
UPSI, UiTM
UiTM- Meeting to be conducted on 1/9
UMP
UMT (Terengganu)
-
UKM
GMI
No positive outcome yet
TU
IICS, HELP
UNMC
UTeM (Melaka)
IICS - SU Development. Result - AIESEC approved by university admin HELP - SU Development. Result conducted outcampus recruitment in new market (Taylor's College Sri Hartamas) Heriot-Watt is now an SU
CU
UMS
UMS – letter sent to set up OCR
UNIMAS
SEGI, UCSI, Swinburne
Swinburne is now an SU
7
external engagement general indicators LC
# of media appearances
# of external events
# of partners
participation in external events
UUM
0 (-1)
1 (-4)
1 (-2)
0 (-2)
USM
0 (-1)
3 (+1)
3 (+3)
2
UTP
0
1
0
0
UMP
0
0
0
0
UM
0
0 (-1)
Twitter, Blog, Instagram
0
0
UPM
0
3 (+2)
1 (-6)
3 (+2)
UKM
0 (-2)
5 (+3)
3 (+1)
5 (+5)
SU
0
0
0
0
TU
3 (+2)
5 (+5)
Instagram, Blog
8 (-1)
5 (-5)
UNMC
2 (+1)
4 (+4)
Blog
1
0
UTM
0
0
2 (+1)
0
CU
0 (-1)
1 (-1)
1
3 (+3)
UNIMAS
1 (+1)
1
0
1
social media activity
Instagram, Blog
* Values between parentheses depict absolute growth from last Q
8
external engagement facebook performance
0.48
UMP
1504 (+338)
127
0.08
UM
2898 (+396)
137
0.05
UPM
1467 (+108)
400
0.27
UKM
1541 (+191)
100
0.06
SU
1044 (+107)
49
0.05
TU
1088 (+217)
41
0.04
UNMC
1417 (+206)
337
0.24
UTM
1241 (+162)
30
0.02
CU
494 (+70)
0,73
0.001
UNIMAS
2239 (+367)
35
0.02
* Values between parentheses depict absolute growth from last Q
2000 1500 1000 500 0 UNIMAS
614
CU
1277 (+124)
UTM
UTP
2500
UNMC
0.06
TU
146
SU
2444 (+1716)
UKM
USM
3000
UPM
0.002
UM
4
UMP
1605 (+318)
3500
UTP
UUM
engagement rate
USM
# of Fb likes
UUM
LC
daily average of engaged people
# of FB Likes vs. Daily Average of engaged people
9
external engagement organizational health vs. performance
UTP
UPM
UM
TU UNMC UKM
UTM
CU USM UUM UNIMAS
SU
UMP
10
external engagement overall customized inferences LC
inferences
UUM
Can diversify online communication channels. Success of YouthSpeak Roadshow appeals to the potential in doing special physical events for oGCP promotion. General overall decline in external engagement indicators demonstrates that more effort was put on MRD as opposed to EPRD, which in turn demonstrates that more focused HR support for oGCP is needed.
USM
Great increase in Facebook engagement indicators can be sustained and leveraged for oGCP conversion. Increased number of external events have paid off in terms of oGCP growth. Number of partners has been doubled and can be utilized to co-drive LC events and overall on-campus brand perception.
UTP
Number of matches for oGCP was similar to previous term despite the fact that it is the LC with the highest # of applications for Q4 – support from MarComm should be explored in terms of how to implement strategies for Application-to-In Progess conversion.
UMP
Very low execution rate of physical promotion activities – LC should focus on rallying members to simply execute events.
UM
Has experienced one of the most significant growth in Facebook engagement – should now focus on managing quality and consistent content for the page instead of expanding.
UPM
Should engage whole LC to continue creating quality campaigns for Facebook, where the LC has seen one of the biggest engagement rates in AIESEC in Malaysia.
UKM
High increase in quantity of physical promotion touchpoints has not translated into a huge growth in applications – LC should consider reviewing Marketing strategies that were applied in Q4 and identify key improvement points to increase efficiency.
SU
Stagnated indicators in terms of physical promotion despite the fact that its where the LC gets most of its program applications – should focus on quantity in terms of external event creation and execution.
TU
Second LC with the highest application # for oGCP, although has low conversion rates to In Progress. MarComm should play a more active role in ideating and implementing strategies to support oGCP on conversion.
UNMC
Turned the tide on its Facebook engagement from the previous Quarter, should further explore growth in relevance of online communication channels by associating content with other in-campus organizations’ pages.
UTM
Low Facebook engagement calls for more request on support from national side (capitalize on Q4 LC Coach) to create most suitable campaigns for UTM’s student population. Should revitalize indicators in terms of physical event creation.
CU
Low penetration of online communication channels in campus translates into a need to innovate in terms of external events and partner involvement in physical promotion initiatives.
UNIMAS
Is not exploring its Facebook potential – has a high audience with low engagement. Should request aid in creating attractive campaigns that appeal directly to UNIMAS’ youth needs.
11
talent capacity TOTAL # OF LC MEMBERS
CU UNIMAS UUM 40 47
69
UTM
back office front (39,1%) office (60,9%)
USM 53
79
UTP 82
UNMC 89
UMP
highest front office weight
highest back office weight
UM
1. UM (69,6% vs. 30,4%) 2. SU (69,4% vs. 30,6%)
1. UTM (67% vs. 33%) 2. UNIMAS (57% vs. 43%)
45
TU
UPM
93
SU 72
UKM 63
56
72
am has 860 members increased by 222 since Q3
368 members (42,8%) attended induction during q4
12
talent capacity lc productivity LC
oGCP productivity
igtp productivity
igcp productivity
ogtp productivity
overall productivity
UUM
0.61
-
1
0.38
0.7
USM
1.6
0
0.82
0.33
0.91
UTP
1.1
0.08
0.5
0.14
0.63
UMP
0.3
-
0.75
-
0.53
UM
0.5
0.07
0.13
-
0.29
UPM
0.37
0.15
0.63
0
0.38
UKM
0.29
0.5
0.15
-
0.24
SU
1.78
0.16
0.05
0.14
0.64
TU
0.81
0.13
0.33
0.29
0.38
UNMC
0.21
0.14
1.25
0.16
0.52
UTM
0.77
0
1.07
0.07
0.57
CU
1.53
-
0.25
-
1.06
UNIMAS
0.7
-
0.38
-
0.55
National Productivity:
oGCP Productivity:
iGTP Productivity:
iGCP Productivity:
oGTP Productivity:
0,57
0,81
0,14
0,56
0,19
13
talent capacity team minimum fulfillment
83%
82,8%
87,5%
team
plan
jd
Increase from 76,8% in Q3 Most: UNMC, UNIMAS (100%) Least: UTP (63,2%)
Increase from 79,3% in Q3 Most: UNIMAS(100%) Least: UPM (58,8%)
Increase from 79,4% in Q3 Most: UM, UKM, CU, UNIMAS (100%) Least: UPM (63,6%)
76,2%
65,9%
51,8%
training
tracking & coaching
evaluation & reflection
Decrease from 79,5% in Q3 Most: UKM(100%) Least: UNIMAS (50%)
Increase from 53,1% in Q3 Most: UKM (85,7%) Least: UMP, UNIMAS (50%)
Increase from 49,4% in Q3 Most: UNMC (100%) Least: SU (16,7%)
14
talent capacity general indicators
membership retention 90,9% Q3: 93,4%
UPM 3
UUM 3
UNMC 102
113 Eps recruited as members
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
tlp positions vs. applicants National Average: 1,26 In Q3: 1,46
UTP
CU
7
7
UNMC 13
27 tmp on exchange
CU UTP
Total # of IXPs Â
153
1
1
UNMC 11
13 tlp on exchange
LC
# of total IXPs
1. UNMC
126
2. UTP
10
3. CU
8
15
talent capacity organizational health vs. performance
USM UNMC UM
UNIMAS
TU
CU
UUM UTP
UKM
UPM UMP
SU UTM
16
talent capacity overall customized inferences LC
inferences
UUM
Should seek MC and external support for implementation of Evaluation and Reflection Team Minimum.
USM
Exponential increase in Match efficiency from same Quarter last term reflected in good delivery of Team Minimums and higher number of internal trainings. Can allow itself to start integrating Internal Comms strategies for Team Minimum awareness and education and higher quality trainings by involving externals.
UTP
Lowest performing LC in terms of delivery on structural Team Minimum (Team). Low number of internal trainings for high number of LC members.
UMP
Should invest more on MEC implementation to improve number of trainings delivered for new members.
UM
Although overall Exchange performance has increased from same Quarter in the last year, growth rate has not reached the same levels as other LCs. LC should invest in involving membership with other LCs and supporting Team Leaders in terms of Team Management education.
UPM
Average low rates on Team Minimum fulfillment should be complimented with internal education and campaigns for both Team Leaders and Team Members.
UKM
Should invest more on MEC implementation and bringing in learning partners or externals to improve education and number of trainings delivered for new members.
SU
Good productivity from current members can be complemented with diversification of L&D strategies and allows for focus on LC upscalling through Spring MRD.
TU
Despite positive variation in Matches from Q4 of previous year, LC can still improve productivity as the LC with the most members in AIESEC in Malaysia.
UNMC
iGCP has consistently distinguished itself in terms of productivity and can share its project management model and training with the oGCP team.
UTM
HR structure heavily focused on back office, which does not support increase in experience quality for Exchange programmes. Should invest more on MEC implementation and bringing in learning partners or externals to improve education and number of trainings delivered for new members.
CU
Great productivity indicators, but LC needs to upscale its structure through spring MRD to support a continuous and long-term potential for growth.
UNIMAS
HR structure unbalanced with a high percentage of weight of back office areas. More allocations into front office are needed to support quality in experience delivery, especially for iGCP.
17
talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs This Quarter’s SONA includes the output of the semesterly national member satisfaction survey of AIESEC in Malaysia. The objectives of the survey are to evaluate the experience of TMP/TLP for the past 6 months (July-December) and get the new insight and perspective about how members attach to the organization better in the future. This survey was divided into 3 big areas to be reviewed and evaluated as the output, they are: 1. Clarity on current experience and predict the re-allocation evolution if it’s needed, # of % LC 2. Assessing the current team minimum implementation for responses contribution TMP & TLP, UUM 70 14,4% 3. National TMP/TLP evolution for the next 6 month ahead. USM 63 13% Resource can be checked here : 1. Survey link : http://tiny.cc/AM2015MemberSurvey UTP 7 1,4% 2. Response link : click here Only 486 members filled up the survey. It’s 56,5 (%) from the total number of members of AIESEC in Malaysia (860). Here is the current data from each LC, (Survey was closed on 1st of January 2016):
CU UTM UNMC
UUM UMP UPM
UMP
45
9,3%
UM
1
0,2%
UPM
58
11,9%
UKM
22
4,5%
SU
24
4,9%
TU
25
5,1%
UNMC
43
8,8%
UTM
75
15,4%
CU
41
8,4%
UNIMAS
12
2,5%
18
talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs The respondents were dominated by TMP, new members, almost 49.4% from other respondents. AIESEC in Malaysia has 5 layering on structure; - LCP - LCVP - Directors - Senior Executive - Junior Executive # of answers
% of total
Team Leader (in AIESEC for 1-5 months)
59
12,1%
Team Leader (in AIESEC for more than 6 months)
107
22%
Team Member (in AIESEC for 1-3 months)
240
Team Member (in AIESEC for 6 months)
35
Team Member (in AIESEC for more than 6 months)
45
role
We can’t count the % of back office and front office because we need to count overall from all LCs.
tmp (1-3 m)
49,4%
7,2% 9,3%
TM iGcp
marcomm ogcp
department
# of answers
% of total
TM
59
12,1%
FL
19
3,9%
MarComm
66
13,6%
BD/ER
3
0,6%
oGCP
126
25,9%
oGTP
22
4,5%
iGCP
128
26,3%
iGTP
44
9,1%
LCP
11
2,3%
Expansion
1
0,2%
SU
1
0,2%
SUVP
4
0,8%
19
talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – satisfaction areas These 7 areas or issues represents team minimum implementation. These people are those who are satisfied enough with their current experience in AIESEC. The top 3 reasons are personal development due to this experience, team experience and individual responsiblity. However, education for the role is the lowest one. It is impacted by the layering that currently AIESEC in Malaysia has. Education for the role is connected with training, tracking & coaching, evaluation and reflection. Based on the this data, we realize that our LnD doens’t support for the layering. We need to review the education cycle in each of the layering, or shorten the layering to maximize the delivery of education. We need to review the induction part, LEAD and LnD in each of experience. They felt satisfied with personal development, but we don’t much give support for ongoing education. area
# of answers
% of total
Clarity of AIESEC vision and your contribution towards it
146
42,4%
Living team experience
242
70,3%
Individual responsibility and goals
160
46,5%
Education for the role
47
13,7%
Support from AIESEC throughout XP
75
21,8%
Personal development due to this XP
291
84,6%
Professional Development due to this XP
154
44,8%
Lainnya
5
1,5%
0
100
200
300
400
20
talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – improvement areas This is the suggested area that respondents expect to improve. Answers related to a scale from 1 to 7. The top 3 are living team experience, individual responsibility and personal development due to this experience. Looking at the data and reading the opinion from the respondents, the highligh of these improvement areas are: 1. Team, Plan and JD. For the structure of back office, many of them are not following the team minimum. And there are many unchallenging JDs, even based on the feedback, many overlapping JDs among LC (i.e. Marketing & oGCP). 2. Not much Team Leaders know how to facilitate the team members under them. Another point is TLP engagement that was highlighted for the team experiences. That’s why tracking is okay but coaching is stuck. 3. Good point from the feedback is that TMP said that they don’t feel ownership towards the JD & KPI that they got because they never know or get the clarity on the planning processes.
area
# of answers
% of total
Clarity of AIESEC vision and your contribution towards it
52
36,6%
Living team experience
72
50,7%
Individual responsibility and goals
64
45,1%
Education for the role
55
38,7%
Support from AIESEC throughout XP
39
27,5%
Personal development due to this XP
59
41,5%
Professional Development due to this XP
57
40,1%
Lainnya
9
6,3%
0
20
40
60
80
21
talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – next journey Are you continuing in AIESEC next term? # of answers
% of total
YES
334
68,7%
NO
152
31,3%
NO YES
What opportunities are you looking for in the next term? opportunity
# of answers
% of total
Leadership Positions (Directors/OCP in LC Level)
173
51,8%
Leadership Positions (Directors/Managers/EST in National Level)
68
20,4%
Organizing Committee Roles
139
41,6%
Exploring other Departments
123
36,8%
Facilitating Opportunities
157
47%
0
100
200 22
talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – non-retention As usual, the biggest reason are university-related reasons (focusing on study and university graduation). More than 50% is the university study concern, however, there is an interesting point that we can see from the percentages; 11,2 % respondents think that they are low performing, that’s why they lost confidence to stay in AIESEC, and also demotivation is in 17,1% of the reasons. From this point of view, exit interview, fire fighting experience and evaluation & reflection are important to be highlighted. Exit interview is one of the methods that we can use to know the insight on how people’s experience in AIESEC and which part of our role as TLP can we improve in this area. Not only that, but fire fighting is needed as well to make sure that they got the clarity and appreciation on what they did in AIESEC. And the last one is the space for TLP and TMP have a time to get evaluation and reflection on they JD and outer journey.
Why have you decided to leave AIESEC? REASon
# of answers
% of total
University Graduation
34
22,4%
Low Performance
17
11,2%
Demotivation
26
17,1%
Focusing on University Studies
82
53,9%
Studying Abroad
4
2,6%
Health Problem
7
4,6%
Financial Problem
10
6,6%
Working for another club/organization
25
16,4%
Lack of Family Support
10
6,6%
Lainnya
32
21,1%
23
sustainability payment times and financial health GCP TN Takers
EPs
LC
current net asset
cluster (Q4)
health (fcm)*
UUM
53,6 K
III
Over
National Average:
National Average:
USM
41,5 K
IV
Over
28,5 days
5,6 days
UTP
35,5 K
IV
Over
UMP
11 K
IV
Under
UM
42,4 K
IV
Over
UPM
59 K
IV
Over
UKM
42,5 K
IV
Over
SU
32,2 K
V
Over
TU
39 K
IV
Over
UNMC
95 K
IV
Over
UTM
16,3 K
IV
Under
CU
39,9 K
V
Over
UNIMAS
21,7 K
IV
Good
Last Quarter: 42 Days Best: UM (7 d) Worst: UUM (90 d)
Last Quarter: 3,7 Days Best: UUM (0 d) Worst: UTP, UMP (14 d)
GTP TN Takers
sponsors
National Average:
National Average:
17,4 days
18,7 days
Last Quarter: 14 Days Best: USM, SU (7 d) Worst: UKM, UNMC (30 d)
Last Quarter: 27,6 Days Best: USM (1 d) Worst: UMP, UKM, TU (30d)
* FCM = Finance Clustering Model
24
sustainability revenue and expenses LC
expenses (operations)
expenses (nonoperations)
revenue (exchange)
revenue (non-x)
UUM
12987.06 RM
14710.94 RM
15772.50 RM
1496.21 RM
USM
9111.18 RM
4435.35 RM
21050 RM
2975.30 RM
UTP
---
---
36900 RM
34.39 RM
UMP
2527.58 RM
1923.59 RM
9009 RM
480 RM
UM
1176.56 RM
8037.31 RM
9000 RM
1016 RM
UPM
4643.31 RM
2724.66 RM
9300 RM
600 RM
UKM
9927.06 RM
5107.63 RM
18723.11 RM
817.80 RM
SU
5097 RM
5091.09 RM
31100 RM
1801 RM
TU
2698.74 RM
9146.12 RM
14300 RM
3084.59 RM
UNMC
13956.36 RM
17357.26 RM
15300 RM
15211.38 RM
4222 RM
7300 RM
9435 RM
UTM
2455.87 RM
CU
1353.27 RM
2122.13 RM
23107 RM
50 RM
UNIMAS
6061.08 RM
7605.19 RM
13560 RM
1600 RM
non-x (14.7%)
exchange (85.3%)
revenue streams
non-ops (53.4%)
operations (46.6%)
cost structure
25
sustainability NAF LC
Reserves - dec
UPM
41
UTP
High income
q4 Profit/Loss
LC
36934.39
UTP
40
22712.91
SU
UUM
39
19681.660
CU
CU
39
10478.77
USM
UKM
35
10057.13
UTM
TU
24
5539.73
TU
UM
23
5037.83
UMP
USM
19
4506.22
UKM
SU
16
2532.03
UPM
UNMC
13**
1493.73
UNIMAS
UTM
9
802.13
UM
UMP
3
-802.24
UNMC
UNIMAS
2
-10429.29
UUM
Low income
26
sustainability incoming global citizen LC
income tn raising
income sponsors
income other
expenses transport
expenses accomm.
expenses food
expenses other
UUM
1272 RM
---
---
---
---
---
8471.21 RM
USM
3000 RM
---
---
---
5503 RM
---
698.30 RM
UTP
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
UMP
6309 RM
---
---
---
---
---
2399.98 RM
UM
400 RM
---
---
---
---
---
6.90 RM
UPM
2200 RM
---
---
---
---
---
1926.99 RM
UKM
12923.11 RM
---
---
---
---
---
9877.06 RM
SU
---
---
---
---
---
---
4200 RM
TU
----
---
---
---
---
---
---
UNMC
4200 RM
---
---
---
---
---
11392.55 RM
UTM
2100 RM
---
---
---
---
---
1313.72 RM
CU
1500 RM
---
---
---
---
---
1232.27 RM
UNIMAS
1860 RM
---
---
---
---
---
4682.08 RM
*Green = Program is self-sustainable; Yellow = Program is at or almost at a break-even point; Red = Program is currently unsustainable
27
sustainability organizational health vs. performance UPM TU SU
UKM
UTP
UM
CU
USM
UNIMAS
UNMC
UUM
UTM
UMP
28
sustainability overall customized inferences LC
inferences
UUM
Should not be discouraged by their loss last Quarter, as it still has a lot of investment power and so far the ROI has been consistently good, which reflects in the LC’s positive growth path.
USM
oGCP clearly distinguishes itself as the bread and butter of the LC – both investments and return can be heavily relied on this programme. Should consider investments on the Quality in Experience Delivery side to ensure long-term sustainability of programme.
UTP
Did not spend any money in Q4 (according to monthly Financial Survey), so should increase investment in operations and LC development to grow outgoing exchange and quality for incoming exchange.
UMP
Current financial health places a lot of pressure on obtaining partnerships/sponsors for iGCP sustainability. oGCP has the immediate task of becoming a cash cow for the LC so that recent growth in iGCP does not jeopardize its health.
UM
Displays overall average/stagnating indicators – in order to push itself out of this situation, should consider targetting its investment towards supporting one specific programme.
UPM
Is sitting on a lot of reserves that should be invested to drive more initiatives or projects. Investment on Exchange growth should be considered as LC is very close to jumping to a Cluster III entity.
UKM
Should intensify operations investments as extreme past growth rate has slowed down significantly during the past Quarter. Is sitting on a lot of reserves that can be applied to support operational growth.
SU
Continuous good financial health and jump into Cluster IV allows for more bold investments in Q1 for ROI in Q2.
TU
Has a lot of room for risk-taking in the investment arena. Has both financial and HR talent capacity to push oGCP growth and experience quality.
UNMC
Loss in Q4 is not highly consequential as it is connected to the very high growth in iGCP experiences delivered. Should tap into huge reserves for Investments focused on the oGCP side as this program needs to grow in order to support iGCP.
UTM
Financial investments should be fully targetted into bridging the gap between operational reality of oGCP and iGCP – oGCP needs to grow to ensure long-term sustainability of the LC.
CU
Should focus on drafting an investment plan to understand how it is going to reapply its huge income from oGCP back into operations to sustain growth and quality experiences.
UNIMAS
Financial health took a hit from iGCP growth in Q4. Securing project funding/sponsoring is essential to ensure longterm sustainability of LC.
exchange management global citizen outgoing
application
Conversion Rate:
28,3% Last Quarter: 31,3% Top: CU (66%) Bottom: TU (11%)
open/IP
Average # of days (App -> Open/IP):
11 days
Conversion Rate:
77,7% Last Quarter: 42% Top: UTM (92,3%) Bottom: UNMC (33,3%)
match
Average # of days (Open/IP -> MA):
15 days
Conversion Rate:
85,7%
realization
Last Quarter: 85,7% Top: UTP, UNIMAS(100%) Bottom: UTM (7,7%)
Average # of days (MA-> RE):
27,8 DAYS 30
exchange management global talent incoming
meeting
Conversion Rate:
41,1% Last Quarter: 11% Top: UNMC (83%) Bottom: USM (10%)
open
Conversion Rate:
Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):
17,4 days Last Quarter: 10,6 Days
33,3% Last Quarter: 40,1% Top: UTP (80%)
Bottom: USM, UM, UTM (0%)
match
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):
Conversion Rate:
53,4%
82,1 days Last Quarter: 93,6 Days
Last Quarter: 33,9% Top: UPM (150%)
realization
Bottom: USM, UM, UTM (0%)
31
exchange management global citizen incoming
meeting
Conversion Rate:
42,1% Last Quarter: 53% Top: UNMC (100%) Bottom: SU, UKM (0%)
open
Conversion Rate:
Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):
13,8 days Last Quarter: 9,8 Days
40% Last Quarter: 66,1% Top: UTP, UNMC (100%) Bottom:
match
SU, UM(0%)
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):
Conversion Rate:
63,1%
41,3 days 33,5 Last Quarter: 33,5 Days
Last Quarter: 91,1% Top: UUM, USM, UTP,
realization
UMP, UPM, UKM (100%) Bottom:
SU(5%)
32
exchange management global talent outgoing
application
Conversion Rate:
43% Last Quarter: 78,2% Top: UUM (160%) Bottom: USM (0%)
open/IP
Conversion Rate:
% of Podio applications from planned background:
48,8% # of people at Info Sessions:
9
27,1% Last Quarter: 0% Top: USM (67%) Bottom:
match
TU (0%)
Conversion Rate:
realization
# of people at selection meeting:
30 Average # of days (IP -> MA):
12,5%
54,9 days
Last Quarter: 100% Top: UTM (100%) Bottom: all other LCs running oGTP (0%)
Average # of days (MA –> RE):
27,1 days
33
exchange management 64,5% of Total iGTP
64,5% of Total iGTP
# of meetings for GE:
# of TN forms open for GE:
OPEN
MEETINGS
incoming global entrepreneur
60 19,5% of Goal Achieved
14 7,2% of Goal Achieved
80
50
70
40
60 50
Planned Meetings
40
Planned Open
30 20
30
Achieved Meetings
20 10 0
USM UTP
UM UPM UKM SU
TU UNMC UTM
Achieved Open
10 0 USM UTP UM UPM UKM SU
TU UNMC UTM UUM
34
exchange management incoming global entrepreneur MATCHES
64,5% of Total iGTP # of Matches for GE:
Q1 PROJECTION
2 Congratulations! The first ever! (UKM)
Planned 113,3% Growth from last Q
Planned 278,6% Growth from last Q
Planned 2750% Growth from last Q
Planned Growth from 0 from last Q
Meetings
Open/IP
MA
RE
128
53
57
47
Planned Goals for GE Incoming for Q1
Planned for Q1
50 40
Meetings
30
IP
20
MA
10
RE
0 USM
UTP
UM
UPM
UKM
SU
UNMC
UTM
UUM
35
exchange management podio expertise National Average for oGCP:
UNIMAS
CU
7,8 / 10
UTM UNMC
Last Quarter: 7,5
TU SU
iGCP
UKM
iGTP
UPM
oGCP
UM
National Average for iGTP:
6,4 / 10 Last Quarter: 5,5
UMP National Average for iGCP:
UTP
USM
6,6 / 10
UUM 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Last Quarter: 5,9
36
exchange management value delivery indicators
OGCP IGTP
break match
break re
23
1
CU - 12
UPM - 1
6
1
USM, SU - 2
UKM - 1
igcp
igcp
27
92%
EPs went on a border run for VISA extensions.
EPs had full preparation for the experience.
igCp
IGCP
OGTP
10
0
UMP - 5
3
1
UUM, TU, UNMC - 1
UUM - 1
igTp
122
7
LC buddies were recruited for the EPs.
Re-Raises with previous TN takers.
37
exchange management lead for eps implementation
69,7%
Last Quarter: 39,9%
Last Quarter: 45,4%
Top Implementer: UMP, CU (100%)
Top Implementer: UNMC (80%)
Focuses for Q1: Realized (9 LCs) Matched (3 LCs) Complete (1 LC)
37,4%
IgTp
Ogcp lead flow
Top Implementer: SU (60%)
Top Implementer: UUM, UKM, TU (100%)
igcp
Focuses for Q4: Realized (9 LCs) Matched (4 LCs)
lead flow
lead flow Last Quarter: 18,4%
Last Quarter: 59,6%
76,3%
Focuses for Q4: Matched (6 LCs) In Progress (2 LCs) Realized (1 LC)
18,4%
Focuses for Q4: Matched (5 LCs) Application, IP, Reintegration (1 LC each)
OgTp lead flow 38
exchange management overall performance app/ meeting
open/IP
match
realize
OGCP
1398
369 +16,8%
261
+536,6%
63
-17,1%
IGTP
63
33
-66%
17
+1600%
8
+60%
IGCP
17
341
177
48
OGTP
80
+110,5%
+470,1%
+33,3%
40
13
1
+122,2%
+550%
-80%
*values below final results represent growth or decrease from q4 of 2014
39
exchange management organizational health vs. performance
UNMC
UKM
UUM
TU SU
UPM UM
CU
USM
UNIMAS
UTP UMP
UTM
40
exchange management overall customized inferences LC
inferences
UUM
Should push on LEAD flow implementation for oGTP to avoid more Breaks in RE. Revival of iGTP department for 16/17 is totally possible through investment in Global Entrepreneur as a programme.
USM
Should continue rigid selection process for oGCP (2nd LC with highest number of rejections at selection, since it has reflected into 0 Break MAs and REs.
UTP
Highest average number of days of conversion from IP to MA suggests investment in conversion strategies (TN Sales for Raised EPs, guidance from EP Buddy and deadline setting). Biggest oGCP department in Malaysia needs to be reflected by a better and more intense education from TM side to promote Matching, as LC is approaching its RE peak in Q1.
UMP
Should focus iGCP department on quality strategies for already MA and RE EPs and then focus both LC and oGCP teams on driving Summer Peak upscalling for Global Citizen Outgoing through application and application-to-In Progress conversion strategies.
UM
Big discrepancy between number of meetings for iGCP and number of Opened Forms suggests more education on Sales, Negotiation and Deal Closing is needed for iGCP team. Investment in quality strategies for iGCP is needed, as reflected in the low LEAD implementation rate.
UPM
Has not been following up on high goals for Incoming Global Entrepreneur, and therefore LC should review if the program is really being supported by proper HR and financial resource allocation and number of initiatives.
UKM
Should invest on LEAD flow implementation for iGTP to sustain program growth. Incoming Global Entrepreneur pioneering success has potential for growth with further investments from LC.
SU
Highest number of Re-Raised in Malaysia for iGTP suggests that good partnership management strategies and upscalling existing TN takers is a good investment.
TU
Should consult MC and external context to review strategies and understand how to improve oGCP application-to-In Progress conversion rate. Performance has not reached high levels of LC health yet (abundance of HR and financial resources).
UNMC
High number of expected REs for iGCP for Q1 has to be reflected in targetting quality strategies (i.e., someone to manage and coordinate the 27 recruited EP Buddies for a more effective servicing strategy).
UTM
Very low implementation rate of LEAD for oGCP, should really consider enforcing quality standards in strategies from oGCP team. LC is at danger of falling back into Cluster V if it does not map out how to grow in oGCP for Summer Peak.
CU
Very high level of Break Matches in oGCP would suggest that a more rigid selection should be made for EPs to filter out individuals with not the right motivations. Can allow itself to start figuring out brand advocacy strategies for oGCP EPs realized in Q4.
UNIMAS
Imperative to start investing resources into iGCP quality strategies. Should insist on Podio Management education for iGCP.
specialized units performance & health indicators
swinburne 7 uthm UNIMAP hw 16 17
7
inti 5 help 16
138 su members 16% of AM membership
USMEC 30
Pekan UTAr 24
back office (38,4%) front office (61,6%)
16
# of applications for GLP
# of applications for GCP EP
swinburne
UNIMAP
UTHM
12
heriot -watt 44
16
UNIMAP
24
PEKAN 36
21,3% of AM Total
54
heriot-watt 27
Utar 18
INTI 24
help 15
pekan 11
exchange performance Su
Open /IP
MA
RE
UNIMAP
15
6
0
OGCP
USMEC
11
9
1
11
11
0
OGCP iGCP
3
1
2
OgCP
10
10
0
iGCP
UMP Pekan
0
0
0
OGCP
HELP
3
1
1
OGCP
INTI
2
0
0
OGCP
Heriot-Watt
9
2
1
OGCP
UTHM
0
6
0
11
11
5
OGCP iGCP
5
4
4
OGCP
UTAR
Swinburne 13,8% of AM Total
42
specialized units organizational health vs. performance
UTAR unimap
help
USMEC UTHM
swinburne heriot-w pekan inti
43
specialized units overall customized inferences LC
inferences
UNIMAP
Should focus on conversion strategies from Application to In Progress to leverage on higher number of GCP applications. Should improve on SUEB KPI tracking.
USMEC
MarComm strategies should focus on Brand Advocacy to capitalize on EP experience showcasing to improve brand positioning in an otherwise saturated market. High productivity in iGCP allows for focus in experience quality (LEAD delivery) and maintaining and upscaling current TN takers.
UTAR
Transition into LC status needs to be accompanied by more intense resource allocation into oGCP to ensure financial sustainability. HR structure is currently not optimized to support focus on oGCP.
UMP PEKAN
Capitalize on UMP administration move to Pekan campus to improve university relations and support. Need to overcome the mindset of giving up on winter peak despite the lack of 6 weeks holidays.
HELP
Host LC needs to focus on L&D and ensure implementation of MEC to improve extremely low productivity rates.
INTI
Home LC needs to apply resources (especially in terms of HR) at INTI to ensure SU reaches a level of capacity of self-sustaining operations. Education on CoW for current members is necessary to increase oGCP productivity.
HERIOTWATT
Can implement self-made experience showcasing with the 2 Matched EPs in Q4 to improve brand awareness and perception. Self-manage spring MRD to improve Talent Capacity for Summer.
UTHM
Positive productivity and performance on iGCP side. Room for improvement in oGCP, which should be the Q1 driving focus. Start by seeking out how to focus back office areas into supporting oGCP delivery.
SWINBURNE
Continue positive focus on oGCP operations. Reintegration strategies are key in ensuring good SU health and future performance.
44